GEORGE BONGALON vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 169533 March 20, 2013

TICKLER: Santo Nino procession; Anti-Child Abuse Law

DOCTRINE:
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse
under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond
reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:
Prosecutor’s Office of Legazpi City charged the petitioner in the RTC in Legazpi City
with child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan,
his older brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in
Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s
daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him "sissy"; that the
petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like "strangers" and "animals";
that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; that
the petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to
a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that Rolando later
brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also
underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the
doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered the
following contusions, to wit: (1) contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area, left; and (2) +1x1 cm.
contusion left zygomatic area and contusion .5 x 2.33 cm. scapular area, left.

On his part, the petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He
explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, his
minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about
Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to
a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.

To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not
hit or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her daughters "Kimi" and
why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling
him a "sissy." She insisted that it was instead Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the
procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and protective father.

RTC: Guilty of Child Abuse

CA: Affirmed conviction but modified penalty

SC: Not liable for child abuse; liable for SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, penalty mitigated by
passion or obfuscation

ISSUE:
Whether or not George Bongalon is guilty of child abuse in violation of Sec.10(a) of RA
7610?

RULING:
The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty of violating is
Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions
Prejudicial to the Child’s Development. –

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered
by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

xxxx

Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:

Section 3. Definition of terms. –

xxxx

(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes
any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being;

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that
the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we
disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-
quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of
hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a
human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records
showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his
own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the
loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.

It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is
resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible
circumstances in his favor.

What crime, then, did the petitioner commit?

Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical
attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period.

xxxx

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30
days of imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the RPC, because the
petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will
power. Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief
of the accused. It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a
diminution of intelligence and intent. With his having acted under the belief that Jayson and
Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s
hair, the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is
prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any aggravating
circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one
year, the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.